4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Sudiyivka.
5.  On 13 March 2002 the body of Eduard Kryvonis, the applicant’s adult son, with numerous injuries, was found lying on a village street. According to a subsequent forensic assessment, he died between 2 and 4 a.m. on that date.
6.  On the same date the Novosanzharsky district police examined the site and questioned some potential witnesses. They discovered, in particular, that the night before his death, Eduard Kryvonis had been visiting friends and had left for home with his bicycle that had gone missing.
7.  On 11 April 2002 the prosecutor’s office ordered a criminal investigation into the applicant’s son’s death.
8.  On 17 April 2002 the police drew up an investigation action plan.
9.  On 23 April 2002 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an injured party. During a questioning on an unspecified date she alleged, inter alia, that her son could have been killed by M.
10.  On 11 June 2002 the police stayed the proceedings as they could not find any useful leads.
11.  On 13 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office quashed this decision as premature. It instructed the police, among other actions, to take comprehensive measures in searching for the victim’s bicycle and to question some local residents known as prone to violence, including M. and K.
12.  In October 2002 Z. and L. confessed that in the company of K. they had encountered Eduard Kryvonis on his way home late at night on 12 March 2002 and beaten him up.
13.  On 28 October 2002 Z. and L. retracted their confessions, alleging that they had been extracted from them under duress.
14.  On 10 November 2002 the proceedings were discontinued in view of absence of any useful leads.
15.  On 14 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office quashed this decision, ordering further investigative steps to be taken. They noted that the investigation had already been suspended on similar grounds without appropriate action having been taken.
16.  On 27 May 2003, 10 September 2003, 29 April and 15 July and 16 December 2004 five further decisions to stay the proceedings were taken.
17.  On 10 July and 24 October 2003, 12 May, 30 September 2004 and 31 March 2005 respectively those decisions were quashed by the prosecutor’s office, which found that not all of its previous instructions had been duly complied with.
18.  On 23 August 2005 D. confessed that late at night on 12 March 2002 M., V. and himself had engaged in a fight with Eduard Kryvonis and had beaten him.
19.  On 24 August 2005 a confrontation between D. and M. was organized, during which the former confirmed his confessions, while the latter denied any accusations. V. had died by the time D. confessed.
20.  On 16 January 2006, responding to the applicant’s complaint, the Deputy Head of the Chief Investigative Department of the Ministry of Interior stated that the investigation had been “patchy, passive”, “conducted at a low professional level and not in conformity with the methodology of investigating this category of offences”; and marked by “loss of time and sources of evidence”. He noted, in particular, that the case-file featured no documents explaining a one-month delay after the discovery of the body and before the initiation of the criminal proceedings; that no meaningful and prompt action had been taken to locate the purportedly missing bicycle; that no comprehensive measures had been taken to verify whether M. could be involved in the crime, notwithstanding the applicant’s suspicions corroborated by some other evidence; and that the alibis of M., D. and K. had not been verified. The officer further regretted that the police had thought of sending Eduard Kryvonis’ clothes for a forensic assessment only two years after his death and that at that time it was discovered that the clothes were missing. In addition, the officer pointed to a number of shortcomings in drafting and filing procedural documents and regretted that on numerous occasions the proceedings had been unjustifiably stayed without the instructions of the prosecutor’s office having been properly complied with.
21.  On 16 June 2006 the police searched M.’s household and seized a bicycle, which the applicant identified as her son’s. M. disagreed and argued that he had bought the bicycle from Dm., who had confirmed M.’s submissions.
22.  On 25 March 2008 the police took a fresh decision to stay the proceedings, referring to insufficiency of objective evidence to indict M. or D. and absence of any other leads.
23.  On 23 July 2008 the prosecutor’s office quashed this decision on the grounds similar to those mentioned above.
24.  In January 2009, following the death of D., the police requested the Novosanzharsky District Court to close the proceedings in view of the death of D. and V., whom they considered the principal suspects.
25.  The applicant objected to the police’s proposal, submitting, inter alia, that charges should be pressed against M., implicated by late D. in her son’s beating.
26.  On 2 April 2009 the court rejected the police’s request as not based on law.
27.  On numerous occasions the applicant complained to various authorities about the protracted nature of the investigation and its various procedural shortcomings. On various dates the prosecutor’s office (in particular, on 2 July and 15 August 2003, 19 February 2004, 15 June 2005, 23 April 2007 and 26 September 2008) and the department of Interior (in particular, on 29 March 2007, 26 May and 13 November 2008 and 21 October 2010) acknowledged that the investigation had featured unnecessary delays and instances of procedural inactivity. They also notified the applicant that four police officers were subjected to disciplinary sanctions on account of their failure to ensure the adequacy of the investigation.
28.  On 15 November 2011 the deputy chief of the investigative unit of the Poltava Regional Department of Interior informed the applicant, in response to her complaint, that on 29 September 2011 an investigator in charge of her case had been reprimanded by way of a disciplinary sanction for poor organization of the investigation and the case was transferred to another officer. It appears that the investigation is still pending.